The evil of mandates: Even the New York Times is getting it

I have been arguing for months now that the real threat in national health-care reform is not the public option but the proposed federal mandate that everyone have health insurance.

And even the New York Times is coming around to this point of view. Note this excellent analysis of health-care mandates by economist Tyler Cowen.

"Reform advocates start with anecdotes about the underprivileged who are uninsured, then turn around and propose something that would hurt at least some members of that group," writes Cowen.

He goes on to note that the reformers argue they will give subsidies to those who can't afford insurance. But those subsidies would have unintended effect of trapping people in poverty:

" For many people, the health insurance aid would phase out when food stamps, housing vouchers and the earned income tax credit also end and the personal income tax kicks in," he writes."This structure of incentives would likely discourage many parents from earning a better life for their children."

And then of course there is the fact that there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the power to tell Americans to buy anything from anyone ever, whether it's insurance or tea, if I may employ an example from the Revolutionary period.